Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

i reuse to talk on animesuki any more they are elitests and no matter what u say always ends on deaf ears because they are all so one track minds

I love how he says we have "one track minds" when we do a lot of arguing amongst ourselves over this very topic.

His thing about Bern can be cut up with this very controversial blue:Bernkastel in Umineko is the same Frederica Bernkastel from Higurashi. The nature of EP7 is the result of a miracle, Bern's domain. The miracle of this Fragment mirrors the miracle of Minagoroshi-hen.

When you say that the story itself is lying to you and you cannot trust direct evidence, you throw the entire story away.

I find problems with this position.

It breaks down when its logical conclusion is applied to real life. When you see an optical illusion, do you think that means you shouldn't bother using your eyes any more because they provide unreliable data? When a person lies to you once, does that mean that you can never trust anything they ever say to you again? And to truly hold your position and take it to a consistent logical conclusion means you should dismiss all of Umineko's Fantasy scenes as completely useless, even for hints.

RK07 is really, really trying to challenge us to think about fiction differently than we are accustomed to. The narrator is subjective and has an agenda, and to understand the story being told, what we really need to do is to unravel that agenda. That's why we look for metaphors and hints in the Fantasy scenes, even though we know they aren't real. Of course there are no absolutely reliable methods that can be applied in this process, but so what? We simply have to make the best judgment we can with the non-absolute information at hand, just like we do to come to conclusions about the real world.

You misunderstood my argument. When you say that the story itself is lying to you and you cannot trust direct evidence, you throw the entire story away. You can't say "Yes, the story itself was lying here to deceive the player" without putting your theory on the same level as the Purupurupiko man one. "The story was lying here" can be said about every single part of the entire narrative, including the parts that support Genius Battler! When you discount those parts of the story as Battler lying to Ange and Featherine/Himself/The players, I can say the exact same thing about the "evidence" supporting that theory! If you're going to provide evidence for genius battler that's great, but if you're going to deny the text of the story then you just lose any basis for discussion.

The issue is that the things the omniscient-form narrator says are directly contradicted by statements about the nature of being GM in ep8. It's an inconsistency that cannot be avoided, no matter your perspective on Battler's motivations or lack thereof in ep6. Either Battler knew what was going on and could only possibly have been planning things the whole time (and ep6's narration is wrong or misleading) or he didn't know what was going on and he/Beatrice/Lambda are full of crap (and ep8's dialogue is wrong or misleading).

You make a fair point, and I would generally be inclined to say omniscient-form narrative > dialogue in terms of credibility in a narrative, but the problem is that you pretty much run up against a problem any way you slice it. This leads us to conclude one of two things:

That the narrator was correct and Ryukishi screwed up or changed his mind by ep8.

I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of the former for once, and the things that Battler was supposedly thinking in ep6 were wrong. LyricalAura and others have provided a possible explanation for this: Ange was "reading," and her reading colored the narrative. This gets around several problems with Battler's behavior:

The idea that he's surprised by Erika or swayed by her pouting are Ange's conclusions drawn from Battler's reaction. Since she doesn't understand what ulterior motive he'd have (he knows The Truth, she doesn't), she assumes his feelings are genuine.

The notion that rescue by the dead victims was his first plan makes sense in the context of the fact that, as GM, he should already know they're dead; Ange wouldn't know this, so since that was the first thing Battler suggested as a solution she presumed it was his intended one and not an intentional step into a trap he knew was set.

The idea that Battler could have said Kanon was in the cousins' room was stated in the narrative, but this shouldn't be true. Especially since, if he knows The Truth, Battler probably should be well aware of Shkanon (he doesn't seem at all surprised by it at the end of ep6, at least). Battler's acceptance of Erika's "everyone else" line is perhaps because it doesn't give away or break Shkanon, but as the reader Ange may not have been aware of this.

Basically, the argument LA and others are making is "The ep6 omniscient narration is provided by the Reader, Ange, based on what she believes everyone was thinking. In fact, the only thing we can trust is what was actually said, and it's impossible to tell the difference between Genius Battler and Incompetent Battler strictly from Battler's statements. However, since Genius Battler is supported by much more evidence in Chiru than Incompetent Battler, Genius Battler is probably correct."

The issue is that the things the omniscient-form narrator says are directly contradicted by statements about the nature of being GM in ep8. It's an inconsistency that cannot be avoided, no matter your perspective on Battler's motivations or lack thereof in ep6. Either Battler knew what was going on and could only possibly have been planning things the whole time (and ep6's narration is wrong or misleading) or he didn't know what was going on and he/Beatrice/Lambda are full of crap (and ep8's dialogue is wrong or misleading).

I'm still a bit confused as to where exactly Episode 8's narration contradicts Incompetent Battler, and I also fail to see how Ange's reading for Featherine makes the narration unreliable. She's reading, not writing, and I got the impression from episode 6 that Featherine wanted Ange to read so that she would have someone to discuss the tale with(which is why episode 6 is full of scenes where Ange and Featherine question each other and discuss what is happening). Featherine needed a reader so she had a partner to theorise and reason with, not so she had someone to make mistakes and botch the tale that she wrote.

Quote:

It breaks down when its logical conclusion is applied to real life. When you see an optical illusion, do you think that means you shouldn't bother using your eyes any more because they provide unreliable data? When a person lies to you once, does that mean that you can never trust anything they ever say to you again? And to truly hold your position and take it to a consistent logical conclusion means you should dismiss all of Umineko's Fantasy scenes as completely useless, even for hints.

You have missed an important distinction. If you see an illusion, you are seeing an illusion - something that looks like something else. A lie in the internal narration of a character is more akin to a hallucination - and when you are hallucinating, you indeed cannot trust the information your senses are giving you. There's a big difference between a hologram of something and a hallucination of the same thing, and in the latter case you do actually have to throw out a lot of the information your senses are telling you. Umineko's fantasy scenes are illusions, but not hallucinations.

Genius Battler also runs into the problem of the scenes of Battler trapped in the logic error which are littered throughout Episode 6 - He had no plan to get himself out of there, to the point that his "heart died", and these scenes even take place before Ange starts reading to Featherine, with the obvious implication being that the narration is reliable. Furthermore, "I don't have a problem losing the smaller fights to set up the big win" fails to take into account just how serious the logic error is. A logic error is not a "smaller fight", it is the end of Battler and everything he fought for and the ultimate desecration of the one thing he had left from Beatrice. That's the exact opposite of a "smaller fight", unless Battler was so desperately in love with Beatrice that he'd commit suicide and desecrate her corpse in an attempt to bring her back to life.

I'm still a bit confused as to where exactly Episode 8's narration contradicts Incompetent Battler, and I also fail to see how Ange's reading for Featherine makes the narration unreliable. She's reading, not writing, and I got the impression from episode 6 that Featherine wanted Ange to read so that she would have someone to discuss the tale with(which is why episode 6 is full of scenes where Ange and Featherine question each other and discuss what is happening). Featherine needed a reader so she had a partner to theorise and reason with, not so she had someone to make mistakes and botch the tale that she wrote.

But she is not necessarily making mistakes or spoiling the tale. She's just reading. There were countless references in that episode on how the reader's way of reading can have a large impact on the nature of the tale itself. Namely, Bernkastel says in the ??? tea party 'I have no love, so some things can be interepreted in an odd way.'

Though of course such thing does not apply in reality except in a much too subtle way, Umineko takes it to an extreme. Thus, we are not actually reading the same lines of the manuscript Ange is reading, we are more likely listening to them being read aloud. And since each reader is a completely different individual, their impressions and thoughts on what they read are bound to differ drastically. To give an example, I may absolutely adore Beatrice as a character, whereas someone else may hate her. The impression made on each of us by whatever she says or does are complete opposites based on that fact.

Quote:

That's the exact opposite of a "smaller fight", unless Battler was so desperately in love with Beatrice that he'd commit suicide and desecrate her corpse in an attempt to bring her back to life.

The first one has already done.
Plus, he bears the genes of a guy who would scream 'OOooOOoh, Beatoriiicheee!!!' while getting drunk...

After having pondered the topic a bit more, I guess I came to the conclusion that I'm not actually so much against "Yasu having three (four) different personas/personalities", given the background story I think I was pretty okay with that. What might still bother me is the way it's ruining the game boards for me. From the meta perspective and from an emotinal point of view, Yasu "splitting" her feelings up is even kinda understandable - but as soon as it comes to the gameboards - whether they are "kakeras" or probably rather written stories - this concept is ruining them a bit for me. =/

I suppose that's what leaving a bitter taste with me, not so much the fact Yasu developed those personas in the first place.

Also on the topic of contradictions, I have been rewatching Ep 1. Almost everyone agrees that Shkannon is the culprit in the forgeries (prime is more contentious), and that she intended to kill people. I am also aware of people who play the "Her murder mystery was hijacked" card. Putting aside the fact Nanjo is a sucky doctor who should have been quicker on the uptake, and any time Kinzo appeared as first twilight victim Krauss or Natsuhi should have known something was up, there is a problem.

Beatrice's letter states that she will give everything back if the epitaph is solved, however since forgery beatrice intends to kill people she can't. She isn't supposed to break promises...

Also on the topic of contradictions, I have been rewatching Ep 1. Almost everyone agrees that Shkannon is the culprit in the forgeries (prime is more contentious), and that she intended to kill people. I am also aware of people who play the "Her murder mystery was hijacked" card. Putting aside the fact Nanjo is a sucky doctor who should have been quicker on the uptake, and any time Kinzo appeared as first twilight victim Krauss or Natsuhi should have known something was up, there is a problem.

Beatrice's letter states that she will give everything back if the epitaph is solved, however since forgery beatrice intends to kill people she can't. She isn't supposed to break promises...

I think that letter would actually make sense if we assume it was only supposed to be a murder mystery. The victims wouldn't really have been dead and they could have "revived" when the epitaph was solved. But going with the "it was hijacked" theory, I've barely read any plausible assumptions regarding the hijacker. People arguing for this theory don't really seem to care about WHO the hijacker actually IS. I get the impression it's often just put to the side.

Going from the impression I got from Eva, protecting her "close" family, e.g. Hideyoshi and George, has always top priority for her. I think that theoretically George culprit theories (in whatever form) at least tie in nicely with Eva covering up the whole thing (I'm not so convinced she did it for Ange's sake in the end) and maybe also with her killing Battler in case he had found out George was somehow involved in killing people?

Of course these are only my wild guesses as always. =D George as (some kind of) culprit just sits so fine with me. xD

Ah, but the hijack theories relate to prime don't they? These statements contradict WITHIN the forgeries

Haha I don't actually see through that. But I do think it's striking that WITHIN the forgeries there are hints pointing to a 2nd culprit - the one being rather brutal without any references to the epitaph and the culprit staging close rooms, staking the victims and stuff. I don't know whether this is just meant as a hint to prime or also a hint for the solution within the forgeries.

The bigger problem for me is that Ryukishi's definition of love seems to be the most twisted thing in the entire series. If I can't lift a set of weights, it isn't "love" if I imagine myself juggling those same weights, or create a persona of myself that can. That's called "being an idiot/weak/unable to handle the truth".

Being without love(And Bernkastel was obviously lying when she said that - just watch any of her conversations with Lambdadelta, especially in Cross) in the Ryukishi sense is actually a positive trait. Erika's boyfriend WAS cheating on her, Yasu was stuck in a twisted and deformed body incapable of love(and deluding herself when trying to have a relationship with George), etc etc. "Love" makes you see things that aren't there - it is a bad thing to be full of that particular brand of love.

The bigger problem for me is that Ryukishi's definition of love seems to be the most twisted thing in the entire series. If I can't lift a set of weights, it isn't "love" if I imagine myself juggling those same weights, or create a persona of myself that can. That's called "being an idiot/weak/unable to handle the truth".

Being without love(And Bernkastel was obviously lying when she said that - just watch any of her conversations with Lambdadelta, especially in Cross) in the Ryukishi sense is actually a positive trait. Erika's boyfriend WAS cheating on her, Yasu was stuck in a twisted and deformed body incapable of love(and deluding herself when trying to have a relationship with George), etc etc. "Love" makes you see things that aren't there - it is a bad thing to be full of that particular brand of love.

It's only the second most twisted thing actually, after "lying to the world about a potential mass murder (or not telling everyone it was just an accident and allowing them to speculate it was a mass murder) is totally okay if you're trying to protect one person who can make her own damn decisions."

But yes, I was waiting for the "but" in the whole discussion about how wonderful and magical self-delusion is, but all you get out of following that conversation thread is Ange turning into a stone-cold mofo. So apparently that's just the moral, deluding yourself is good. Nothing good ever came out of Maria starting to accept the reality of her relationship with her mother and she should've just gone on pretending it was messed up and never actually matured and realized her mother wasn't perfect or monstrous and tried to repair the relationship in any realistic sense. Even though, had she grown up, that's something she simply would have to have accepted and dealt with. The world does not actually permit an eternal retreat into fantasy, nor should it.

Well, it depends on the situation, but I do think Umineko's message about escapism is valid in a lot of cases.

I mean, if you can actually DO something about a negative situation, then that's obviously preferable to just pretending that you aren't in one. But in, say, Ange's case in St Lucia, where there was really nothing she could do about the sad state of her life, wasn't it a good thing that she had Maria and her other imaginary friends to give her a bit of happiness in her otherwise unenviable circumstances?

I don't think you can easily say 'escapism is a good thing' or 'escapism is a bad thing' with certainty. And I do respect Umineko for having the guts to give a controversial message about the benefits of escapism - I find that makes for a much more meaningful and thought-provoking story than Higurashi's more conventional 'power of friendship' message.

What I don't like and I think is absolutely wrong in the mariage sorciere "magic" is the denial of unhappiness.

Escapism is okay as long as it is used as a distraction and not as a way to replace reality. Ange could fantasize about having a lot of friends and so could Maria, but they shouldn't have crossed the line where they would fool themselves into believing they had absolutely no problem and they were happy that way.

Maria wasn't happy, no matter how you look at it, there is overwhelming evidence that she was sad and she wished continously for Rosa to be a better mother. And yet when Ange inquired, Maria was adamant in stating that she was happy.

This kind of delusions can lead to a whole lot of psychological problems. You should never deny your feelings.

If we talk about a "realistical" approach to love, I think Umineko kinda missed it in my view. I won't talk about how you shouldn't misinterprete funny remarks like "I'll come and get you a white horse, kihihi" because we can easily wiggle our way out of here with "Yasu had such a hard life, she wanted to escape, Battler told her he would help her" etc etc
(Plus, they never even confessed their love for each other or even took any further steps, so it's not farfetched to at least PONDER whether the other person was even feeling as strongly as you do yourself)

But I think "love" is especially also about the bad things and events, horrible experiences (so to say two sides of the same coin) and coming to terms with that stuff even if it's hard to deal with - if you can't do that without using other people to fill "the hole", developing countless personas or going on a muderous rampage, then you probably aren't really up to it.

Well said Saorin and I might add that love is also about understanding others.
The impression that Yasu left me with was that of a person that was overly concerned about her own tragedy to empathize with other people's situations.

Battler's "sin" could be well forgiven by anyone with just a basic understanding of what that 12 years old kid went through. To think that someone who was supposed to love him couldn't and was still resentful after 6 years... Good grief... I can understand that she suffered that much, but how could she not think "it's not his fault", "he must have suffered a lot". If she really loved him she'd be more concerned about him than herself.

The problem is Ryukishi already had a great and well-written example of true love that accounts for the realities that can pop up and accepts that some things aren't perfect: The parents. For all the things they do wrong, their love for each other was surprisingly strong. Krauss/Natsuhi, Eva/Hideyoshi, even Kyrie/Rudolf, they were all quite strong both romantically and realistically. And in Kyrie's case, you're talking about the man who dumped her for another woman, kept cheating on said other woman with her, messed with their children, and only just recently came crawling back!

Yasu's had a hard life and all, but romantically compared to Kyrie, she ain't dealt with nothin'. Oh boo-hoo, your first crush hasn't talked to you in a while. Try living 18 years not knowing another woman raised your son while the man you love won't acknowledge you in public for 12 of those.

And Natsuhi? Well, sure, she digs her own grave with her committment to her family honor and all, but it's worth noting that it isn't even her birth family and she's doing it for her husband and father-in-law, people who often don't treat her very well, because she loves Krauss that much. Krauss himself gets suicidal, not because he's selfish and wants to get out of his problems, but in the hopes that his death would shield Natsuhi and Jessica from his shame.

And not much needs to be said about Eva, really. Being willing to be thought of as a murderer to protect your niece, while probably the wrong decision, takes a hell of a lot of love and a willingness to stick your neck out.

You want to talk about sacrifice, and dealing with reality, and making an effort for love? There's already characters in the story who do that, but apparently they're not that important in the end.